click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130512
20130520
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
what's happening. because the cia has gotten drawn in a little bit to what's going on. rake in has not officially told the cia to do anything like this. they get reagan to sign, december 1985 what's called a presidential finding, a document that authorizes covert operation to a piece of paper that says for these reasons i order these agencies to do this and this and this, and is very specific. there were two things about this finding in december 1985 that were highly unusual, highly unusual. the first thing is it's retroactive. it's contrary to the law. the law states clearly a fine is supposed the signed by the president before the covert action is initiated. not after it's been going on. this finding december 1985 cents explicitly all prior actions are hereby ratified and approved. second thing that's unusual, it states especially, the document does, don't tell the house and senate intelligence committees about this. don't tell them. it's a very, very unusual and questionable document that reagan signed. so why did he do it? it's basically because people, the to insist that reaga
the investigation -- director of the national central agents -- cia, this is national security. is what senator feinstein said. i think we should have been told. why not notify under the law the proper authorities here in the united states congress, specifically the head of the intelligence community, and why not notify the president of united states? -- >> again, there is a strong tradition and concern within the justice department not to reveal ongoing criminal investigations. theere sensitive to possibility of a national security concern. we do not think that one existed. present the nine states? -- the presidents of the united states? i would think that is the one person who should absolutely know what is going on. there was a potential that the director of the cia had been compromise, that you are investigating, why not share that with president obama? shareause, we do not ongoing criminal investigation. if you look back, and conclusions we reached were correct. we do not have a national security -- it is an ongoing investigation. it's an ongoing investigation. >> but the time is expired.
for 42 years in the army come the state department, the defense department and 25 years with the cia most recently as the division chief in the office of soviet affairs. he has authored, co-authored and edited seven books and he is currently a senior fellow at the center for international policy and an adjunct professor of government at johns hopkins. it's clear that he is constantly writing and he has published just about everything except maybe "people" magazine. ladies and gentlemen i'm very pleased to introduce the author of the "national insecurity," mel goodman. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for the intro and thank you for the invitation. to talk about the book here. i am glad you started with eisenhower. i am going to start with eisenhower, greatly underestimated president. are you having trouble in the back? it greatly underestimated president. john talked about one morning. i briefly want to talk about for more -- warnings that eisenhower gave and i think you will appreciate in terms of national security policy and defense policy. you have to appreciate these warni
that perhaps benghazi talking points or e-mails back and forth between the state department or cia are not as compelling or understandable for most americans. but in this case it's difficult for the white house, particularly when they're having to comply with all kinds of investigations and everything else that's going to happen with congress, we're just seeing the beginning of these hearings and it's a big deal. i will point out the "new york times" has a great piece today looking at there were actually some liberal groups lumped in among these 400 groups, the vast majority of them were conservative. but there are about two dozen liberal organizations that got extra scrutiny. >> i wanted to ask you with our next topic, as a journalist your perspective on the controversy around the associated press, here's what came out on politico: "conflicting information is emerging over the process the justice department used to approve the subpoenas for associated press telephone record." >> it's difficult for me to take a view here. i'm a journalist, i've had many sources i protect and i wou
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4